Post by mehtastic on Jul 24, 2019 14:08:28 GMT -5
Currently Armageddon MUD has about 185-200 unique logins per week*, and has fluctuated between those amounts over the past several weeks. A discussion started in the shoutbox recently regarding whether Armageddon would ever see 250 logins a week again.
I'd like to expand on that last message of mine somewhat, and continue the discussion. There are actually a large number of reasons why I believe Armageddon won't see the 250+ unique logins days ever again, and can't get the numbers back up at this stage. I'll attempt to discuss a few of the big ones briefly and productively:
Lack of Good Player Leadership
Delerak was the first to touch on this, but I want to expand on it further and explain why I think player leadership in Armageddon is severely lacking. Put simply, players get thrown into the VERY deep end of the pool when it comes to Armageddon leadership. Players are typically either promoted to leadership positions ICly, or have to compete for leadership positions by applying for a sponsored role. Before that point, players generally do not have a chance to practice for leadership without being in a proper leadership role. While it's true you could get some idea of what a leadership position is responsible for by playing close to one, it doesn't always work that way. Playing an aide to a noble, for example, does not make you a good player of a noble; it makes you (if anything) a good player of a noble's aide. No one has any idea what type of leadership role they have a knack for, if any at all, until they try it.
Furthermore, player leaders are under such great pressure to perform, that they typically (at best) store their character within a few months, and take the leadership expertise they gained with them; or (at worst) abandon the game entirely, considering the stress as not worth their time. Pressure comes from players in the form of cliques complaining that a player leader is not doing well enough. Often these players are comprised of the people playing rivals to those leaders; for example, if you have Joe Tor and Bob Oash, and there's an OOC group bashing Joe Tor, chances are very good that Bob Oash's player is a part of it, if not outright behind those efforts. Additionally, pressure comes from staff, who watch leaders closely to see what they add to the game, and are the ultimate kingmakers when it comes to who gets to play a leader in the first place.
Lackluster Staff Leadership
This has been discussed so thoroughly here that if you're familiar with what I and people like me have to say about the subject, you already know what this section is going to say. The staff body is terribly bloated compared to other games' teams. Staff generally work poorly with one another and even compete with one another in many cases, both for resources (staff and builder time, in particular) and prominence for their plots and projects (for example, staff generally don't post multiple submission requests or role calls at the same time for different clan groups). The hierarchical staff structure is not conducive to cooperation; it is more like a microcosm for a corporate environment where workers are expected to stand out from the rest of the pack in order to advance. The few MU*s that are still growing in 2019, have somewhat of an anarchistic or cooperative staff structure: there may be a game owner, but he or she considers him or herself equal to the other staff. The staff bodies for these games are also small: no more than 5 staff members at most.
Stagnancy, and a Playerbase that Prefers It
Change is scary, especially if your character's survival or your mastery of the game's systems depends on things remaining the same. This is not a problem unique to Armageddon: you'll find there are people in many game communities who seek to stifle change. The type of change that is stifled is not just to game mechanics or rules, however. Players can affect change through their characters' actions, and these changes can be scary, too. It is easier to destroy than it is to create, and a team of players working together to bring something new to the game can be ruined by one player - often a player with a powerful character - who can put a stop to it simply because they want to. Armageddon's players, by and large, either prefer stagnancy or are indifferent to it. It is easy to bring players to a new game, but it is hard to keep them around if it seems dead. When the biggest major change to the game in the past year is the return of elements that should have already been ported over to the new magick subguild system long ago, there's a problem.
---
Finally, I want to touch on one thing that can't be blamed alone for Armageddon's slow decline: that overall MUD player size is generally down. While this is true, there are roleplay required MUDs which boast significantly higher concurrent players and weekly unique logins than Armageddon, and some of them are even growing slowly and steadily. Armageddon's certainly not helped by the fact that fewer people play MUDs, but what actively hurts is the three points I described above.
I'm curious if anyone else would like to add anything to that list or if people would like to dispute anything. For the record, I'll gladly eat my hat if Armageddon gets back to 250 unique logins in a persistent way. I just think that the game and its culture need to undergo serious change, or it will never happen.
* Edit: It's worth noting that the 185-200 player amount is an estimation that relies on how the unique login number is compiled. If it counts unique accounts, then we're looking at several staff who are potentially getting counted as two logins (if they log into their player account to play, and their staff account to staff). The actual number may thus be slightly lower.
jenki : Are the days of 250 unique logins a week long gone, or is there a chance Arm could get back to it's old numbers?
mehtastic : thesandlady I think those days are long gone at this point. People will say it's because MUDs in general are on the decline, but there are a few text based games that see slight growth. Arm's problems hold it back from player recruitment and retention.
delerak : arm can get the numbers back up. you need good leaders running clans for one which it seems arm is lacking right now.
mehtastic : Well, that's partly why I said Armageddon can't get back the 250+ weekly logins days that it used to have: because Armageddon lacks good leaders. I would argue that staff actively suppress leadership and don't give players ways to grow into such roles.
mehtastic : thesandlady I think those days are long gone at this point. People will say it's because MUDs in general are on the decline, but there are a few text based games that see slight growth. Arm's problems hold it back from player recruitment and retention.
delerak : arm can get the numbers back up. you need good leaders running clans for one which it seems arm is lacking right now.
mehtastic : Well, that's partly why I said Armageddon can't get back the 250+ weekly logins days that it used to have: because Armageddon lacks good leaders. I would argue that staff actively suppress leadership and don't give players ways to grow into such roles.
I'd like to expand on that last message of mine somewhat, and continue the discussion. There are actually a large number of reasons why I believe Armageddon won't see the 250+ unique logins days ever again, and can't get the numbers back up at this stage. I'll attempt to discuss a few of the big ones briefly and productively:
Lack of Good Player Leadership
Delerak was the first to touch on this, but I want to expand on it further and explain why I think player leadership in Armageddon is severely lacking. Put simply, players get thrown into the VERY deep end of the pool when it comes to Armageddon leadership. Players are typically either promoted to leadership positions ICly, or have to compete for leadership positions by applying for a sponsored role. Before that point, players generally do not have a chance to practice for leadership without being in a proper leadership role. While it's true you could get some idea of what a leadership position is responsible for by playing close to one, it doesn't always work that way. Playing an aide to a noble, for example, does not make you a good player of a noble; it makes you (if anything) a good player of a noble's aide. No one has any idea what type of leadership role they have a knack for, if any at all, until they try it.
Furthermore, player leaders are under such great pressure to perform, that they typically (at best) store their character within a few months, and take the leadership expertise they gained with them; or (at worst) abandon the game entirely, considering the stress as not worth their time. Pressure comes from players in the form of cliques complaining that a player leader is not doing well enough. Often these players are comprised of the people playing rivals to those leaders; for example, if you have Joe Tor and Bob Oash, and there's an OOC group bashing Joe Tor, chances are very good that Bob Oash's player is a part of it, if not outright behind those efforts. Additionally, pressure comes from staff, who watch leaders closely to see what they add to the game, and are the ultimate kingmakers when it comes to who gets to play a leader in the first place.
Lackluster Staff Leadership
This has been discussed so thoroughly here that if you're familiar with what I and people like me have to say about the subject, you already know what this section is going to say. The staff body is terribly bloated compared to other games' teams. Staff generally work poorly with one another and even compete with one another in many cases, both for resources (staff and builder time, in particular) and prominence for their plots and projects (for example, staff generally don't post multiple submission requests or role calls at the same time for different clan groups). The hierarchical staff structure is not conducive to cooperation; it is more like a microcosm for a corporate environment where workers are expected to stand out from the rest of the pack in order to advance. The few MU*s that are still growing in 2019, have somewhat of an anarchistic or cooperative staff structure: there may be a game owner, but he or she considers him or herself equal to the other staff. The staff bodies for these games are also small: no more than 5 staff members at most.
Stagnancy, and a Playerbase that Prefers It
Change is scary, especially if your character's survival or your mastery of the game's systems depends on things remaining the same. This is not a problem unique to Armageddon: you'll find there are people in many game communities who seek to stifle change. The type of change that is stifled is not just to game mechanics or rules, however. Players can affect change through their characters' actions, and these changes can be scary, too. It is easier to destroy than it is to create, and a team of players working together to bring something new to the game can be ruined by one player - often a player with a powerful character - who can put a stop to it simply because they want to. Armageddon's players, by and large, either prefer stagnancy or are indifferent to it. It is easy to bring players to a new game, but it is hard to keep them around if it seems dead. When the biggest major change to the game in the past year is the return of elements that should have already been ported over to the new magick subguild system long ago, there's a problem.
---
Finally, I want to touch on one thing that can't be blamed alone for Armageddon's slow decline: that overall MUD player size is generally down. While this is true, there are roleplay required MUDs which boast significantly higher concurrent players and weekly unique logins than Armageddon, and some of them are even growing slowly and steadily. Armageddon's certainly not helped by the fact that fewer people play MUDs, but what actively hurts is the three points I described above.
I'm curious if anyone else would like to add anything to that list or if people would like to dispute anything. For the record, I'll gladly eat my hat if Armageddon gets back to 250 unique logins in a persistent way. I just think that the game and its culture need to undergo serious change, or it will never happen.
* Edit: It's worth noting that the 185-200 player amount is an estimation that relies on how the unique login number is compiled. If it counts unique accounts, then we're looking at several staff who are potentially getting counted as two logins (if they log into their player account to play, and their staff account to staff). The actual number may thus be slightly lower.
